CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of G1610 vs 72 among all CPUs

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

PCMark 8 Home 3.0 Accelerated, PassMark and 1 more

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

PassMark (Single Core), Geekbench 3 Single Core and 1 more

Integrated Graphics

Integrated GPU performance for graphics

Sky Diver and Cloud Gate

Integrated Graphics (OpenCL)

Integrated GPU performance for parallel computing

CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 4 more

Performance per Watt

How efficiently does the processor use electricity?

Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

Value

Are you paying a premium for performance?

Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

6.4

CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets

Winner
Intel Celeron G1610 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Celeron G1610  based on its performance and single-core performance.

See full details

Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!
VS

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Celeron G1610

Reasons to consider the
Intel Celeron G1610

Report a correction
Much newer manufacturing process 22 nm vs 65 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Much better geekbench 2 (32-bit) score 3,517 vs 1,461 Around 2.5x better geekbench 2 (32-bit) score
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Higher clock speed 2.6 GHz vs 2.1 GHz Around 25% higher clock speed
Significantly better PassMark (Single core) score 1,397 vs 610 More than 2.2x better PassMark (Single core) score
Better PassMark score 2,498 vs 1,088 More than 2.2x better PassMark score
Front view of AMD Turion X2 72

Reasons to consider the
AMD Turion X2 72

Report a correction
Lower typical power consumption 28.44W vs 44.69W More than 35% lower typical power consumption
Lower annual home energy cost 8.43 $/year vs 13.25 $/year More than 35% lower annual home energy cost
Lower annual commercial energy cost 30.66 $/year vs 48.18 $/year More than 35% lower annual commercial energy cost

Benchmarks Real world tests of Celeron G1610 vs Turion X2 72

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Celeron G1610  vs
Turion X2 72 
Clock speed 2.6 GHz 2.1 GHz
Cores Dual core Dual core
Socket type
LGA 1155
S1

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE2
MMX
SSE4
SSE3
SSE
SSE4.1
SSE4.2
3DNow!
Supplemental SSE3
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

details

Celeron G1610  vs
Turion X2 72 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 2 2
L2 cache 1 MB 0.98 MB
L2 cache per core 0.5 MB/core 0.49 MB/core
Manufacture process 22 nm 65 nm
Max CPUs 1 1

integrated graphics

GPU GPU None
Label Intel® HD Graphics N/A
Number of displays supported 3 N/A
GPU clock speed 650 MHz N/A
Turbo clock speed 1,050 MHz N/A

power consumption

TDP 55W 35W
Annual home energy cost 13.25 $/year 8.43 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 48.18 $/year 30.66 $/year
Performance per watt 1.96 pt/W 1.61 pt/W
Typical power consumption 44.69W 28.44W
Intel Celeron G1610
Report a correction
AMD Turion X2 72
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus